Spot on. I know it completely different sport, however in Swimming we were getting thrashed by other nations, Youngsters 16-20 are not sent down under based at off shore centres then come back improved. that happend approx 5 years ago and now the benifits are being reaped.

But your agreeing with me Gotcha, send players over, sign up the kids

That's not what I have said at all. Read it again.

But I say they sign up our kids, so do you...





..so you agree with me then?

Certainly not. Sending a handful of players over will improve a handful of players.
The effort needs to be in improving the whole game over here, particularly at junior levels.

Maybe sending Potential Young British coaches other there might be the answer?

which would benefit a handful of coaches.
Why not, instead, find what it is the Australian coaches do or who they learn from, and bring that over here?

Besides, it's probably the Kiwis that we should be looking at - with one full time pro club and a significantly smaller population than Australia, they manage to generate players that can beat them.

Very true!

although a Super League club hired a NZ coach who towards the end of his tenure was rumored to have lost the dressing room due to his coaching...

I think a large problem is also Football in this country, And also RU. Both pay more money and are bigger sports with more media exposure etc... There will be thousands of potentially good League players playing these sports, and that is probably why we struggle with the depth of quality.

We weren't discussing Australia?! We were discussing the NRL (which happens to be based in Australia). The NRL methods, the NRL coaching techniques, the NRL youth system. Which has also produced the overall majority of the NZ players.

We were discussing Graham & Roby playing in the NRL, not playing for Australia. Why should we be looking at the Kiwis? As you've just pointed out, they've only managed to produce one full time pro club.

It's what they do with the players before they get to that level that matters.

....and I told you why sending a couple of players over was of little benefit, if any. Which is why we moved on.

Now, is it the NRL coaching methods that have produced NZ players, or the NZ junior coaching methods that have produced players capable of playing to such a level that they can beat australians to positions in NRL clubs and Brits to spots in SL clubs, and are able to beat a team selected from the best Australians in the NRL?

We should be looking at the Kiwis, because despite having only one full time club, they are able to consistently produce a great number of players capable of playing in SL and the NRL, and also beat the best that England and their 12 elite clubs and Australia and their 15 elite clubs can put together.

I can see why you came to that conclusion.

Just look where Chris Thorman is now, with everything he must have learned during his spell in the NRL.

It's not the Kiwi's that are producing the players capable of playing in the NRL is it?! The Kiwi's don't have a youth system?!

It's the NRL teams youth systems that's producing players capable of playing in the NRL. The fact that were born in New Zealand isn't relevant to the point at all.

If we're talking about the best way to develop English Youngsters, we need to be looking at what the NRL are doing because the NRL are consistently producing players of a world beating standard (Some of whom go on to play of Australia, some of whom go on to play for New Zealand).

You said we need to look at what the Kiwi's are doing, and I am (quite rightly) saying, the fact the New Zealand international team could be considered by some better than the Australia international team, is completely irrelevant when discussing how to produce good players, as the majority of both teams players have been brought up in an NRL youth system. Thus reiterating the fact that we need to be looking at what the NRL is doing, and not what the Kiwi's are doing because the Kiwi's don't have a youth system.

If you don't understand that, then I'm not arguing any more as you clearly don't get it and it can't possibly be explained any clearer.

Do these Kiwi players magically appear at 16-17 years of age in the youth systems of NRL teams?

Why are NRL teams looking to pick up young players from NZ when they have such a large talent pool on their doorsteps?

Somewhere, during their formative years in NZ, they are being exposed to coaching that makes them the equal of their Australian counterparts and considered ready to enter the junior system of NRL teams.

That's the question, and why your answers are more reflective of someone who "doesn't get it" than Richie's.

It's only a hand full of players that at 16-17 are as good as their Australian counterparts. Like maybe 1 in 16?!

Funny that seen as 1/16th of NRL teams, who use NRL training techniques, and NRL youth policiy and who are watched week in, week out by NRL selectors and scouts, just happens to be based in New Zealand.

Look, all I'm saying, is 5 of 23 play for NZ Warriors. The other 80% have been developed by the NRL. My point, which is 100% valid, is that it's the NRL that is producing top quality players, and that is who we should be learning from.

Why on earth, with all those Australian youth players, are NRL clubs signing young Kiwis?

These kids from New Zealand are top quality players (for their age) before they even get to the NRL, that's my point. What the NRL clubs then do is take these players and polish them into the players that put on Kiwi jerseys.

So how is New Zealand able to generate such numbers of these outstanding young players for the NRL clubs when their English equivalents can't do the same for SL? It's that pathway into the pro clubs and its relative success in NZ that needs to be examined as much as what the NRL/SL clubs do with their junior players.

IMV it's because Rugby is the national sport in NZ.
Initially Union but increasingly League.
At junior level I suspect that which code you play is immaterial.
Without being racist I think that Maoris & all other South Sea island races (like black sprinters) are genetically better suited to Rugby of both codes particularly since RU in the southern hemisphere at least is now much closer to RL than ever before.

There does seem to be, from the guys I've spoken to here, a fair bit of crossover with players playing both. More than they do here anyway, where many players seem to be either one or the other. Although until just a few years ago, players in 80% of the country didn't even have the opportunity to play league.

I think its due to the fact that modern RU is much more of a handling game than it ever used to be plus the influence of so many exRL coaches now plying their trade in RU all over the globe.
How often did Fran Cotton for instance ever handle the ball compared to Tony Woodcock (the All Black front rower not the ex-Engalnd footballer by the way)?

Which players have been improved to the extent that would warrant such unqualified support for a further exodus?

One of the casualties of the move to summer rugby has been the international scene and the lack of an opportunity for players to have a short stint with an Aussie club.

Without doubt most of the players who guested for ARL clubs came back better for the experience. We also had regular tours which were real learning experiences for players and there was a genuine desire for players to play for their country. This is in contrast to the trips now where players get fraction of the game time.

From my own personal experience living in NZ I can vouch my ten year old at the time step-son was enthused by rugby ( union and league ) because every single one of his class mates was too. It is the game they all aspire to. We found he had the natural attributes in pace and classic wing play within a well disciplined team even at that age ( all the dads and teachers want to to succeed as coaches too, increasing the choice of quality here also ) to succeed.

The attitude in him, however, changed considerably once back in the UK. Football here of course dominates amongst his mates. He no longer has any interest in any code of rugby.
Do not underestimate peer pressure.
My lad is another potential loss to the game and unless RL becomes the dominant sport in this country - it never will - things won't really change.

all very true however sadly in this country there is absolutley no chance of rugby league being as popular as football, regardless of exspansion of the game etc...